ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - MINUTES MEETING

REGULAR & SPECIAL SESSIONS - NOVEMBER 15, 1999

SPECIAL SESSION

The Board of Island County Commissioners met in Special Session on November 15, 1999, at 8:00 a.m., in the Island County Courthouse Annex, Hearing Room, Coupeville, Wa., with Mike Shelton, Chairman, Wm. L. McDowell, Member, and Wm. F. Thorn, Member, present. The Special Session was called to allow the Board to meet in Executive Session with special legal counsel to discuss pending and/or potential litigation, as allowed under R.C.W. 42.30.110 (1) (i). The special session adjourned at 9:30 a.m. No announcement was made on conclusion of the session.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

______________________________

Mike Shelton, Chairman

_______________________________

Wm. L. McDowell, Member

_____________________________

William F. Thorn, Member

ATTEST: _______________________

Margaret Rosenkranz, Clerk of the Board

REGULAR SESSION

The Board of Island County Commissioners (including Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session on November 15, 1999, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Island County Court house Annex, Hearing Room, Coupeville, Wa., with Mike Shelton, Chairman, Wm. L. McDowell, Member, and Wm. F. Thorn, Member, present.

VOUCHERS AND PAYMENT OF BILLS

The following vouchers/warrants were approved for payment by unanimous motion of the Board: Voucher (War.) #62544 –62755……………….$ 249,192.63.

Veterans Assistance Fund: [emergency financial assistance to certain eligible veterans; the names and specific circumstances are maintained confidential]. The Board, by unanimous motion, concurred with the recommendation of the Veterans Assistance Review Committee and took the following action on two claims: (1) V99-13 approved in the amount of $2,065.55 and balance of claim denied; (2) V99-14 denied in entirety.

PERSONNEL ACTION AUTHORIZATION ACTIONS

Dick Toft, Human Resource Director, gave a brief summary review of proposed personnel actions, after which, the Board by unanimous motion approved the following personnel action authorizations:

PAA No. Job Title/Position No. Action Effec. Date

124/99 Mt. Worker 1A #2259.02 Change in Hours 11/15/99

126/99 Parks/GSA Tech #2505.02 Replacement 12/29/99

127/99 Sr. Micro/Softw. Spec #709.00 New Position 11/15/99

ISLAND TRANSIT BOARD – COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEMBERS DESIGNATED

In response to a letter dated November 2, 1999 from the Executive Director, Island Transit, the

Board by unanimous motion reappointed effective January 1, 2000, Commissioners Wm. L. McDowell and William F. Thorn to serve as the County Legislative Body representatives on the Island Transit Board of Directors.

HEALTH CONTRACTS APPROVED

By unanimous motion, the Board having previously discussed the three health contracts before them for approval today at Staff Session, approved the following contracts:

Consolidated Contract Amendment: C07711(5), between Island County and the State

Department of Health, in the amount of $2,500

Contract: School Nurse Services between Island County and NWESD-189, a reduction

in contract of $9,375.00

Contract Amendment HS-07099(1) between Island County and Service Alternatives,

in the amount of $78,100.00.

Modification of Easement – granted by Bonnie Wells

Larry Kwarsick, Public Works Director, presented a Modification of Easement granted by Bonnie Wells associated with the Madrona Way Phase 2 project, which modifies the easement recorded under Auditor’s File #98024245. The purpose of this document is to modify the easement previously granted to coincide be consistent with the as-built constructed outfall. Ms. Wells executed the modified easement at no charge to the County.

By unanimous motion, the Board authorized the Chairman’s approval on the original Modified Easement document from Bonnie Wells.

Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to Agreement PW-972027); Reid Middleton, Inc. - Madrona Way Slide Repair, WO #187

As explained and recommended for approval by Mr. Kwarsick the Board by unanimous motion approved and authorized the Chairman’s signature on Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to Agreement PW-972027 with Reid Middleton, Inc. related to the Madrona Way Slide Repair project under Work Order #187.

Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to Agreement - Sheldon & Associates, Inc. for Biological Site Assessments

After a brief description and a recommendation for approval by Mr. Kwarsick, the Board by unanimous motion approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to existing contract #PW-962041 with Sheldon & Associates, Inc., regarding biological site assessments through the year 2000. [GMA doc. # 5127]

Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to Agreement WITH

BROWN & CALDWELL - Maintenance Manual and BMP Workshops

After summary description and a recommendation for approval by Mr. Kwarsick, the Board by unanimous motion approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to existing professional services contract #PW-992014 with Brown and Caldwell Inc., regarding maintenance manual and BMP Best Management Practice workshops, under Work Order #266. [GMA doc. #5097]

HHHEARING HELD: Franchise #313 – Sun Mountain Construction FOR septic tighT-line in Hultman Road, Camano Island, commencing

at Lots 17/18 northerly to Lot 7, Plat of Arrowhead Beach

A Public Hearing was held beginning at 10:20 a.m., as scheduled and advertised, for the purpose of considering proposed Franchise #313 by Sun Mountain Construction (Darryl Jones) for septic tight-line in Hultman Road, Camano Island, commencing at Lots 17/18 northerly to Lot 7, Plat of Arrowhead Beach. The applicant was present in the audience at time of hearing, along with a number of interested residents.

Lew Legat, County Engineer, reported preliminary discussion with the applicant concerning installation on Arrowhead Road. The Arrowhead Road is 40’ of right of way, two lanes of pavement plus shoulders and ditches with existing water lines, a number of water services to the residents, driveways, gas line, and topography much steeper than Hultman Road. Therefore the preferred location would be on Hultman Road, a 15’ right of way serving a much smaller number of residents. If the franchise is granted, there still will be a permitting process with conditions required related to such things as cover over the sewer line, health requirements, construction schedule to allow passage of traffic during installation. The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office reviewed and approved the document as to form and has been reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. Based on that information, Mr. Legat recommended approval of the franchise as submitted.

Dr. Darrell Stavig, 1611 N. Arrowhead Beach Road, Camano Island, represented 7 out of the 8 people located at the bottom of the hill, explained that he had had already a number of problems associated with too much water and drainage, bulkheads shifting, foundations cracked. There is only about 14” of topsoil on the entire hill. To allow someone to come over the hill and down to the north when the natural slope of that property is to the south and to the west he thought would be a mistake. If the County allows this, his suggestion was that the County indemnify the property owners for any losses from excess water. This would be two septic systems on one piece of property and concern is not the pipeline, but the drainfields.

Bruce Zelk, 1539 N. Hultman Road, represented he and his wife, his parents and cousin, John and Judy Mills who cumulative own about 6 tax parcels adjacent to Hultman Road, relayed a number of objections to the septic system, the second system on Lot 7. His parents own property down-slope from Lot 7, a 70’ wide lot. The whole hillside in the general area is not the best in terms of drainage and general septic conditions. Lot 7 has a house under construction with an approved septic system, and is for sale. In addition, the drainfield and reserve area for Lot 17 are proposed to go on Lot 7. Assuming it meets all County requirements and the septic system is allowed, he opposed placement of a tightline down Hultman Road. Hultman Road is a 15’ right of way, partially maintained by the County, with probably 400’ from Arrowhead Road up to his property line has been maintained by the county and there are ditches in it, a gas line runs up on the north side of Hultman Road adjacent to the Arrowhead property. There is a private water system that meanders through the property and probably goes on to Hultman Road or easement. This is the only access and the 8 cars of full time residents who use the road. The biggest concern is the fact that the tightline will bisect their well radius, and he thought that the appropriate corridor should be Arrowhead Road.

Richard Shaffer, 1547 N. Arrowhead road, owns four tax parcels and is a resident and owner since 1976. Other than the drainage problems and concern about two septic systems on one lot as already noted, he is concerned about running a tightline down behind his property, and where that would go. If it is on the west side, it would be where the well and water system is and he would not want to have to give up any of his property nor did he want to lose the trees.

Bryan Olson, speaking for his grandfather Glenn Hurbs who owns property at 1527 Hultman, presented three issues of concern regarding the tightline:

1. proximity of the tightline to existing wells and water supply;

2. running the tightline could possibility lead to over use of Hultman Road which is the sole access in and out to those properties;

3. granting the request would lead to a continuance of irresponsible development on Lot 17 and 7 with regard to the drainage problem.

Gaylene Altman, 1509 N. Hultman Road, owner since 1977, expressed many of the concerns as the previous speakers. She has a low piece of property and bluff and has had to deal with drainage problems constantly from the property next to her. She lost a 100-year old evergreen. The lot across the street from her slopes down, has been totally clear-cut [lots 7, 17 and 18]. She has a fresh water well which is her only source of fresh water and she was quite concerned about it.

Rita Artis, 1543 Hultman Road, was concerned because she had had other properties where her well had been compromised by fecal coliform. Three people in her home work for Boeings several different shifts and there is concern about being able to use the road.

Weldon Glen, 1559 N. Hultman Road, was concerned about water coming through there with no place to take it out unless it is piped. His water supply is 80’ from the edge of the road – the new line proposed is not an adequate distance from that well. Hultman Road is not a through road. He owns the property on the back side [pointed this out to the Commissioners on a map]. Mr. Zelk helped Mr. Glen identify the area on the Assessor’s map and clarified that the easement goes all the way through; the road, however, is only maintained by the county up to a certain point.

Mr. Legat indicated he spoke with Keith Higman, Environmental Health Director, who advised that a sewer tightline can be run through a 100’ pollution control zone but requires that the sewer line be sleeved inside another pipe and has to stand 10’ beyond that 100’ pollution control zone. In this case the requirement would be to sleeve the sewer line as it goes through the 100’ radius. There are 8 accesses off Hultman Road to the west; an access has been granted to either Lot 17 or 18 because accessing onto Arrowhead has more traffic. Cannot contemplate what people will do in the future. The first issue in considering the granting of an access would be sight distance, location of the access on either one of the roads, concern about any accesses close to the curve on Arrowhead Road. Likewise as more accesses come on to Hultman Road caution must be with the number of lots served by that road. The legal right of way on Hultman Road is only 15’ wide. In order for a drainfield to be placed on Lot 17 would require site evaluation through the Health Department. Comments from the Health Department on the Franchise application:

“This Department has no objection to the franchise application. Prior to installation of the septic system a septic disposal system permit must be issued by this Office.”

If the franchise is granted, the Public Works Department through the actual construction permit can require conditions to allow for timing when the road would be closed and not removing trees. Mr. Legat confirmed copy of a survey for a short plat in 1987 showing the road and the right of way; part of the road goes outside of the right of way at the north end. The permit can only be granted for work within the right of way.

Although Chairman Shelton thought some of the issues brought up, while appropriate, did not believe this the proper venue in that the issue before the Board is whether or not to grant a franchise in existing county roads. There are engineering solutions to problems with wells, etc. and he thought perhaps one condition imposed should be appropriate engineering procedures, i.e. the whole thing sleeved especially dependent upon the type of line used as a transport line. As far as keeping additional traffic off a county road, he was not sure the County had the right to deny people access to Hultman Road. Drainage is an issue that will occur whether coming down Arrowhead Beach Road or Hultman Road, and the Health Department has very clear criteria to deal with that. If there are questions about the issuance of the drainfield permit, the venue for that would be through the Health Department and the Board of Health.

Commissioner Thorn agreed there were engineering solutions to this and he took it at face value that the County could and would condition any permits such that restoration is an obligation, trees can be protected to a maximum and the line run in paved areas so as not to disturb tree roots, etc.

The drainfield issue aside, Commissioner McDowell summarized issues related to the franchise: well radius; access during construction; and what happens to the road after construction. The map shows one of the three wells mentioned with an easement already through it. The County in the past and in the future has and will grant permits for that, subject to conditions for ways to get through a well easement. The issue of safety of the pipe once built was something he assumed would be placed at a standard depth for any pipe, and 30” of cover is minimum. The real issue of concern is how well it is compacted and the material used as backfill.

Mr. Legat mentioned that another condition the Department typically places when lines are underneath the driving surface pavement is for that portion around the pipe to require to be backfilled with control density backfill.

Commissioner Thorn moved approval of Franchise #313 based on permits to be issued associated with this be conditioned on double lining at least through the well radius if not the entire length; Hultman Road would be restored and every effort made to avoid any disruption of trees along that road; and if the drainfield is not approved the franchise is revoked. Motion, seconded by Commissioner McDowell, carried unanimously.

Public Hearing HELD: Ordinance #C-137-99, PLG-046-99, A Technical Amendment Amending Chapter 17.03 Rural Service Zone

A Public Hearing was held as scheduled and advertised, for the purpose of hearing proposed Ordinance #C-137-99, PLG-046-99, a technical amendment amending Chapter 17.03, Rural Service zone.

Attendance:

Staff/Consultant: Phil Bakke; Jeff Tate

Public: Susan Adams, Oak Harbor [Attendance Sheet, GMA doc. #5060]

Hand-outs:

Ordinance #C-137-99 as introduced on 10/25/99 and set for hearing GMA doc. #4971].

Memorandum dated 10/21/99 from Phillip Bakke and Jeff Tate to the Board of County Commissioners regarding Rural Service Zone – Mixed Uses, PLG-046-99 (GMA doc.#5061]

Mr. Bakke introduced the proposed Ordinance and explained that the technical amendment was before the Board after having been interpreted by Island County Public Works to apply to a 4,000 sq. ft. total building limitation to all permitted uses listed in the Rural Service Zone. As pointed out in the memorandum dated 10/21/99 the provision for mixed use development in the Rural Service zone was something that was added by the Planning Commission and subsequently by the Board of County Commissioners at a later time. Together with that addition, the County limited the ability to expand mixed use residential to 6 units per acre. The proposed amendment would clarify the 4,000 sq. ft. limitation and apply that only to the commercial portion of the mixed use and allow the 6 unit limitation to apply to the mixed use residential component in the Rural Service zone.

Mr. Tate provided further clarification and reviewed what occurred over the course of the process. In May of 1998 staff put together the rural service land study, and looked in the field at different isolated non residential uses and presented a report to the Planning Commission showing and describing what those uses were. Staff recommendation at that point was submitted which was to recognize retail services such as rural mom and pop grocery stores. The staff recommendation, supported by the Planning Commission, stated that the Rural Service Zone should provide for conditional expansion of an existing business as well as the right to rebuild in the case of fire or other disaster, limiting the building area to 4,000 sq. ft. [examples: Bailey’s Corner Grocery Store; Soundview Shopper; Huntington’s].

PUBLIC INPUT

No members of the audience requested to speak either for or against proposed Ordinance #C-137-99.

DISCUSSION/ACTION

Commissioner McDowell agreed there was never any intent to include residential , rather only to address the commercial aspect.

Mr. Bakke, in response to a question from Commissioner McDowell, referred to 17.03.140.A:

“Permitted Uses shall not exceed 4,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, processed as a Type I decision pursuant to Chapter 16.19 ICC”.

By unanimous motion, the Board adopted Ordinance #C-137-99 (PLG-046099) in the matter of a technical amendment amending Chapter 17.03 Rural Service Zone.

[Exhibit A placed on file with the Clerk of the Board. Ordinance #C-137-99 (PLG-046-99) as adopted - GMA doc. #5062]

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

IN THE MATTER OF A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT AMENDING CHAPTER 17.03 RURAL SERVICE ZONE

) ) ORDINANCE C-137-99 ) PLG-046-99

WHEREAS, on September 28 and 29, 1998, the Board of Island County Commissioners adopted the County’s GMA Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations; and

WHEREAS, by Ordinance C-123-98, the Board also adopted Chapter 17.03 ICC as Island County’s official Zoning Code to implement its GMA Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, through implementation of Section 17.03.140 Rural Service Zone code it has been discovered that the code is not consistent with legislative intent in that the residential component of mixed uses is currently included in the size calculations for use within the zone; and

WHEREAS, mixed uses were added to the Rural Service Code by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners understanding that the size limit would apply to the number of units located on the property, not the square footage of the residential component; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Island County Commissioners specifically limited the number of residential units involved with mixed uses in the Rural Service Zone to six units; and

WHEREAS, certain technical amendments to the Zoning Code Section 17.03.140 are required to clarify that the square footage of the residential component of a mixed use should not be included in the total square footage limited by the ordinance; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-600, the County SEPA official has determined that the proposed technical amendment to Chapter 17.03 Rural Service Zone is not likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that were not considered in the environmental documents prepared for the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations; and

WHEREAS, the technical amendment is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Legislative Findings of Fact; NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED that the Board of Island County Commissioners hereby adopts certain technical amendments attached hereto as Exhibit A to the Island County Zoning Ordinance Section 17.03.140 (Rural Service Zone).

Reviewed this 25^th day of October, 1999 and set for public hearing at 11:00 a.m. on the 15^th day of November, 1999.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF

ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Mike Shelton, Chairman

Wm. L. McDowell, Member

William F. Thorn, Member

ATTEST: Margaret Rosenkranz

Clerk of the Board BICC 99-602

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15^th day of November, 1999.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF

ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Mike Shelton, Chairman

Wm. L. McDowell, Member

William F. Thorn, Member

ATTEST:

Margaret Rosenkranz

Clerk of the Board

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DAVID L. JAMIESON, JR.

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

& Island County Code Reviser

[Exhibit A to the Island County Zoning Ordinance Section 17.03.140 Rural Service Zone, placed on file with the Clerk of the Board]

Review Financial Reports

a) Treasurer: Current & YTD Cash Report; County Investment Report & Status

Maxine Sauter, Island County Treasurer, transmitted to the Board her written October Current Expense Report, dated November 12, 1999. Receipts are up over the prior year by $714,691, and disbursements up by $217,917. She noted that the sales tax revenue was over budget and would more than compensate for the loss of sales tax equalization. As of November 12^th, some $76,681,833.00 is invested. Investment interest is up and she anticipated it would be over budget for the year.

b) [Auditor Monthly Review of Revenues and Expenditures not available at time of meeting].

ISLAND COUNTY BUDGET HEARINGS SCHEDULED

The Board of County Commissioners, on presentation by Margaret Rosenkranz, County Budget Director, scheduled budget documents for Public Hearing related to adoption of the Year 2000 Island County Budget, on December 6, 1999 at 11:00 a.m., including:

Resolution #C-146-99 Fixing and Adopting the Final Budgets for Island County Current Expense Fund, Special Revenue Funds, and Diking District #4 Fund for Fiscal Year 2000

Ordinance #C-147-99 Increasing the Taxing District’s Prior Year’s Levy Amount for Fiscal Year 2000 for the County Current Expense Levy

Ordinance #C-148-99 Increasing the Taxing District’s Prior Year’s Levy Amount for Fiscal Year 2000 for the County Road Levy.

1:30 p.m. GMA Public Hearings:

Ordinance C-97-99 (PLG-019-99) – Amending Chapter 17.02 ICC to Comply with the Order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Relating to Certain Provisions of the County’s Critical Area Regulations

Ordinance C-128-99 (CD-03-99) – Adopting Best Management Practices for Exemptions to the Island County Critical Area Ordinance, Chapter 17.02 ICC and to reaffirm the Adoption of Best Management Practices to Implement the Clearing and Grading and Stormwater and Surface Water Ordinances, Chapters 11.02 and 11.03 ICC, Respectfully

Ordinance C-130-99 (PLG-033-99) – Amending Chapter 17.02 ICC to Comply with the Order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Relating to Certain Provisions of the County’s Critical Area Regulations

Ordinance C-131-99 (PLG-045-99) – Adopting Findings of Fact Regarding Type 5 Stream Buffers and Certain Provisions of the County’s Critical Areas Regulations

Attendance:

Staff/Consultant: Keith Dearborn; Larry Kwarsick; Phil Bakke

Public: Approximately 20 (Attendance Sheet GMA doc. #5063)

Mr. Dearborn began the hearing by noting a proposed amendment, Amendment No. 1 [referred to as an “orphan amendment, this being to Chapter 16.26 Type IV Decision Criteria [GMA doc. #5141]. The amendment would remove the language about balancing goals of the GMA from Critical Areas Regulation and reinstate that provision in 16.26 ICC for all type IV decisions. The proposed amendment was presented for purposes of review, but to enact same would require a separate ordnance.

PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance #C-97-99 (PLG-019-99) – Amending Chapter 17.02 ICC to Comply with the Order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Relating to Certain Provisions of the County’s Critical Area Regulations

Hand-outs and/or Documents for the Record:

Letter dated 11/15/99 from Mark Goldsmith, Department of Fish & Wildlife, to the Planning Director, regarding proposed amendments on the designation of Habitats & Species of Local Importance [GMA doc. #5036]

Memorandum from Jeff Tate, Senior Planner, to Board of County Commissioners dated 1 11/15/99 regarding Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Setbacks in Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas with attachment Exhibit A, Data Table [GMA doc. #5037]

Proposed Amendment Packet to Ordinance #C-97-99: #9a; #10; #11; #11A; #12;

#13 [GMA doc. #5142]

Document provided by Larry Kwarsick giving the definition of estuarine from: Wetlands of Washington: A Resource Characterization, October 4, 1989

[GMA doc. #5143]

Mr. Dearborn summarized from previous hearings. The Board previously had eight amendments to Ordinance #C-97-99, and adopted two; reviewed a number of others and asked that they be consolidated. That has been done (9) and after review by WEAN of amendment #9, proposed a revision referred to as 9a. Findings still need to be drafted to match what the decision of the Board is.

Amendment 9a, responds to a remand matter from the Growth Board directing that the County establish criteria for nomination and designation of species and habitats of local importance. Proposed Amendment 9a is substantively identical to amendment 9, but appropriately reorganized by Mr. Erickson to make sense. The Fish & Wildlife letter of November 15^th also suggests a revision in the format which is the same as proposed by WEAN. There is one addition made to Amendment 9a that was not in #9, a clarifying amendment, page 2, under h), the last sentence: “Nominations will be processed pursuant to Chapter 16.26 ICC.”. There is a minor clarification on page 3, item iv, the word “Areas” beginning the sentence instead of “Habitat”. As he understands it, Amendment No. 9a would address WEAN’s concern. There is a deletion on page 4 the reference to the Comp Plan and the reference to balancing the goals of the GMA. Consistency with the Comp Plan is required by the Comp Plan as well as the GMA; balancing the goals of the GMA is the inherent function the Board as elected officials perform, and probably does not need to be stated.

Amendment 10 relates to an issued raised by WEAN and the Department of Fish & Wildlife, and is a remand issue, the Growth Board directing adoption of a stock management plans for heron and osprey. The Board of Commissioners instead of adopting stock management plans, elected to put heron and osprey like the other protected species with individual biological site assessments and individual management plans would be approved. The issue that has been raised is that the standard radius of 100’ for a biological site assessment is too small to cover the area that is actually likely to be impacted by development relating to osprey and heron, and WEAN suggested 800’; Fish & Wildlife suggested ¼ mile. Staff suggested 300’, with final direction to leave that number blank until recommendation is received from Andy Castelle, Adolphson and Associates, on what that distance should be.

Amendment #11, functionally isolated buffers. The Growth Board directed that the County either delete functionally isolated buffers or allow for a public hearing and to consider the testimony that was raised as a result of that public hearing. If adopted, this proposal would change modestly the references but would require that in all cases a biological site assessment would be required in order to be able to use his provision. In most cases Mr. Dearborn expected that the reasonable use exception would be the mechanism used to provide people an opportunity to use their property. This provision would apply only to those lots that do not need the reasonable use exception, but for reasons they believe are important, wish to build within the buffer of a wetland or stream. In those cases they would have to do a biological site assessment to demonstrate that the portion of the buffer they wish to build in is isolated and is physically separated and functionally isolated from the critical area and therefore the buffer should not extend onto that portion of the property.

Amendment #12 is another remand matter, classification of estuarine wetlands. Category A wetlands have a cutoff at ¼ acre. The amendment makes it clear that all wetlands that are estuarine would be category A wetlands. Refer to document provided by Larry Kwarsick giving the definition of estuarine, that being from: Wetlands of Washington: A Resource Characterization, October 4, 1989, Douglas J. Canning and Michelle Stevens, Land and Wetland Resources Subcommittee, Environment 2010 Technical Advisory Committee, Environment 2010 Project, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, a. 98504-8711 GMA doc. #5143]. If this amendment is adopted, there would be no bottom threshold to wetlands on shorelines that are estuarine.

Amendment #13 relates to a buffer reduction for residential lots on the shoreline affected by fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The amendment is another attempt to find a compromise addressing concerns raised by Fish & Wildlife, the Coalition, WEAN, and DOE. The remand on this issue from the Growth Board directed that the County delete the old provision relating to reduction of shoreline buffer reductions for fish and wildlife habitat areas. The Growth Board did not invalidate it. This amendment attempts to convince the Growth Board that the modifications made to the provision justify a continuation of a buffer reduction in limited circumstances now available. Mr. Tate’s memorandum refers to this amendment. The table attached to the memorandum shows an estimated, on Whidbey and Camano, approximately 3300 parcels or lots that are adjacent to fish & wildlife habitat conservation areas. Of those under the old proposal about 848 would be able to utilize the buffer reduction provision. Under the revised proposal it is estimated there would be approximately 214 lots that would be able to utilize the buffer reduction.